Leach Firing - Current Players' Reactions

Judging by the posts on the message board yesterday, the majority of posters seemed to believe that Leach got a raw deal, that he wasn't "punishing" James for having a concussion (or for refusing to practice with a concussion), and that he was simply placing him in a comfortable, cool place to make sure that James' concussion symptoms weren't aggravated. Many of these posters relied on emails sent by Leach's fellow coaches and selected former players, which denigrated James personally.

Some new quotes coming out from current players, who presumably witnessed what happened, undermine this story. It seems pretty clear that, whatever attitude problems James might have had in the past, some players believed that, yes, he was being punished, not treated, and that he was being punished for having a concussion.

Senior Center Shawn Byrnes: "There is no question [Leach] understood offense and understood football. But he didn't understand how to deal with people. Everyone is excited about this, to be honest. Adam [James] took a stand. We have no idea why he was in a shed. How could you punish a kid for having a concussion? What could that possibly accomplish?"

Defensive lineman Chris Perry [Go blue!]: "I have no complaints about this decision. [Leach] put Adam [James] in a shed like an animal. Like an animal in a cage. That was bull . . . . You call other players. I think it was a good decision. We have our pep back now. We practice hard this week. We had less stress this week. You know why? Because he's gone."

Cornerback Taylor Charbonnet: "The players make this team, not one coach. As Adam's friend, I didn't like it at all what [Leach] did. He was my brother and I didn't agree with it. I don't know why [Leach] did that. But I know we are fully behind [interim] coach Ruffin [McNeill]. We love him and support him."

In this day and age, a college coach sending a message to his football players that they will be punished if they whine about a concussion is inexcusable. Add to that Leach's refusal to apologize or work with Tech officials on the issue, and then suing the university when he was suspended, and his firing seems justifiable to me.

The majority of comments from players and ex-players in the article that was cited in another thread here were positive about Leach and negative about James.

Also, the "cage" was big enough to hold press conferences. AAMOF, it looks almost exactly like one of the rooms where athletic trainers and massage therapists work down here in the St Pete Forum. Anyone who would exaggerate like that has no credence in my eyes. To me, the exaggerations justify the comments that James was a malcontent and was bad for the team's unity and attitude.

It's obvious to me that the media are following tWWL and engaging in one-sided reporting; It looks like they are attempting to lead the players into inflammatory statements against Leach while ignoring anything positive for him.

Adam James released this video, which he claims is of the electrical closet he was thrown in. Accordng to him this thing is attached to the press conference room and he was in this little closet, not the larger press conference room. Guess it comes down to which video you believe.

I'm very suspicious of any comments by current players, as they're still under the thumb of the AD and his regime. If they don't support him then he can be vindictive and cut playing time or possibly even remove them from the team.

Why would a player take his cell phone to the practice field? Smells of a setup to me.
As for anything on ESPN, don't they employ his father? What do you expect them to put up? Notice they haven't included anything from the other coaches or any negative comments on young Mr. James.

Were there any current players quoted in the earlier posts? I recall only former players and coaches, but I could be wrong.

I don't dispute that James may have been a malcontent. But a malcontent shouldn't be punished as a result of a concussion. Graham Harrell wasn't there on December 17, so I think the word of current players has more relevance regarding what actually happened.

The size of the shed/garage doesn't really matter. The issue is whether he was sent there as punishment, and whether the players perceived it as punishment. If a player who complains about concussion-like symptoms is sent to a garage as punishment, and forced to remain there for two hours while people stand guard to make sure he doesn't sit down, that is inappropriate, no matter how spacious the garage is. I don't know exactly what happened on that day, but the comments of these players suggest that they clearly saw it as punishment.

Finally, if Leach didn't do anything wrong, why in God's name would Texas Tech want to fire the most successful coach in their history, who they just signed to a long-term contract? If the James thing is just a pretext, what is the real motive? I don't buy the "they were upset about the contentious contract negotiations" theory floated by Leach's attorney. If they were so angry about the negotiations, they never would have signed the contract in the first place -- they wouldn't have signed it and then changed their mind one year later.

It seems as though you didn't get it yesterday and still don't today - if he was being punished for a concussion, he would have just been sent home. This whole incident was brought on because the kid was a spoiled brat, not because Mike Leach hates kids with concussions.

The spoiled brat meme comes from a former player (Harrel?) that shared about having a roommate that was a teammate of James on the baseball team. It has everything to do with James' history of behavior on the football team and baseball team, nothing to do with that day specifically.

I get that. But being a spoiled brat in the past is not a reason to be sent to the garage on that day in particular. That's the issue. Was he punished for doing something bratty on that day, was he punished for some reason relating to his concussion, or was he punished because he was a brat in the past and Leach didn't have any particular reason on that day?

I am going to guess the James camp decided to go out and get quotes from those players that were Adam's friend. All these quotes tell me is that both sides quickly asked all of their allies to come out with positive statements. Still doesn't really tell us anything.

These quotes are suggesting that James had some friends on the team that didn't like what Leach did to him?!?!?! GASP!

These quotes are suggesting that James had some friends on the team that didn't like what Leach did to him?!?!?! GASP!

But if his friends didn't like what Leach did to him, doesn't that imply he was being punished and not "treated"? If James was being punished, and if there was no reason for the punishment unrelated to the concussion (and Leach's attorney, despite his numerous media appearances, hasn't offered any), that's game over for me. It doesn't matter if the punishment was harsh or not.

Even if he was being punished, there is a huge difference between being punished for having a concussion and being punished for being a divisive malcontent. Purely speculating but if he was being punished for having a concussion, I think Leach would have had him out running or in contact drills. The accounts have trainers and coaches checking in on James regularly- at no point is this kids health endangered by what Leach did.

Everything in their two histories suggests that this kid is a premadonna that was affecting other players attitudes and Leach is an unconventional coach that likes to make examples of kids that disrespect his authority.

Key question to sort out: How has Leach handled other players wth injuries (esp. concussions)- does he make them practice anyway or does he make them do what they can that won't reaggravate their injuries?

that knew James suggest nothing James says has credibility. I would believe Leach and his 10 year spotless record, along with his coaches, far more than I would trust James. Since TT did not allow the facts to come out, some of this comes down to who you believe: a coach with no previous issues of this nature, with former players testifying to his character, and against James character, or a player and his family a couple of current players, and a school that saves $800,000 by firing him now, who did not allow a hearing to take place where the coach could exonerate himself.

Any tough coach, once gone, will find ex-players criticizing him. those quotes IMO mean nothing other than that there should have been a thorough investigation of this incident, not a rush to judgement and firing.

I think we are all being a little naive if we don't believe that both sides aren't putting on an all out effort to get public sentiment on their side. I think it is too early to believe either side right now. We are just seeing what each side wants us to see.

Leach wants to sue the crap out of Texas Tech to try and salvage his reputation so he trotted out his camo wearing attorney to give us a tour of the closet/garage/shed in question. They appeared to be a little quicker on the draw as they released emails from some current/former players supporting him. TT wasn'y far behind, however, and now we are hearing from current players supporting James. I think we just need to give this story a little time before we can decide which side we believe in.

Initially, I sided with Leach. But with these quotes, it immediately becomes clear that James' side has some credibility, too.

You make it sound like he got the kid that sits next to him in English class, and his neighbor, to speak up for him. That's not true. He got teammates who actually start for the team. And, if they wanted to avoid controversy, they could have been vague, or kept quiet entirely. Instead, they were quite unequivocal. I don't think you can poo-poo that and sweep it under the rug.

What if Brandon Graham and Brandon Minor had sided with Justin Boren when he quit? Would you say "Boren, Graham, and Minor are all friends who are out to get RichRod. GASP!" or would you be a little bit concerned about what RichRod was doing?

which is that Leach was not afforded due process nor was there any evidence of wrongdoing presented prior to his dismissal.

What he did or didn't do, what current/ former players think or agree/ disagree with is not relevant.

They fired him without researching what actually happened. He did not get his hearing that was scheduled for yesterday, because they fired him before the hearing.

All of that said, how many times has Leach done this in the past? Why is James the only player Leach targeted (in 10+ years of coaching, one would think there would be others)? Why does Tech save a ton of money by firing Leach now, instead of in a few days/ weeks (when an investigation could have taken place)? Why are current players only speaking, after Leach was fired?

Just think of this: what if you were fired from your career, based on 1 allegation, which was not investigated and caused your peers to think you are a creep?

I think the larger issue is whether Leach inappropriately punished a student suffering from a concussion. I agree that Texas Tech may have acted hastily in an effort to avoid the $800,000 penalty, and if it wasn't for that penalty they would have done a longer investigation. (On the other hand, they had only suspended Leach and planned on doing a full investigation. Leach forced their hand by running to court and seeking a temporary restraining order. Either Leach and his attorney intended that result, or are incompetent).

Regardless of whether Texas Tech followed proper procedures before the firing, from all available evidence it does seem to me that Leach acted inappropriately. And if Texas Tech didn't have strong reason to believe that Leach had acted inappropriately, I just don't understand what motive they would have had to fire the most successful coach in their history.

Their motive for firing was $$$$. It's the same reason why they sandbagged renegotiating his contract to keep him in the first place. His relationship with the admin. has always been rocky; from his end and their end.

I understand you're a rude prick who can't engage in a discussion with someone who disagrees with you without being an ass about it.

As I said a few posts above, the idea that they were motivated to fire him to save $800,000 makes absolutely no sense. They signed him to a $12.7 million deal less than a year ago. If they wanted to fire him, they were certainly motivated to do so prior to 12/31, when the $800,000 penalty kicked in. But that is not reason to fire him in and of itself.

Internet isn't the best medium of communication and that was a quote from Rush Hour. Sorry the humor didn't translate.

As referenced on another thread re: Chait's take on Leach, if Leach is fired with cause, the school only needs to pay him 400K for his remaining years, not the millions that he's due. There is a lot more money tied up in this than 800K, that's just the initial savings.

If TT's athletic dept. is under their university and not a separate entity, money could be a huge factor this year but wasn't last year before fundings and endowments got cut due to our crappy economy.

No worries. Sorry I internet-snapped. I must confess that, while negs shouldn't bother me, it does start to annoy me when I sense that some people in this thread are going through every post I make and negging it regardless of content (not you). So I was testy.

More on point, I still just don't see the economic motive. If some evidence were to come out that TT was suffering from severe economic issues and could no longer afford the contract that they agreed to 9 months ago, that might change things. But I haven't seen any such evidence.

So yes, if they wanted to fire him for some unrelated reason, they would have a motive to use this as a pretext so that they could fire him for "cause" and save some money. But that theory only works if there is some separate motive to fire him, which I haven't seen.

It may very well come out that Leach locked a kid with a concussion in a cage and this violates a clause in his contract, so he deserves to be fired. That's not the point, however, because we (and Texas Tech) do not know the facts, since Leach was not afforded due process since immediately after the initial allegations, he was suspended for the Bowl game.

You don't get to decide "the point." People have been defending Leach for two days and have failed to give a single reasonable explanation for why a player with a concussion was forced to stand in a shed and "media room" instead of being sent home or put in the trainer's room. An acceptable answer is not "well, he was a dick." It sends a message to the rest of the team about how they should deal with concussions - suck it up and play, or enjoy the shed.

I'm not saying just trust the administration here, and you won't have to - a trial is certainly coming. But that doesn't mean what we should be MOST worried about is the "due process" rights (the type you're talking about don't exist in employment law anyway) of one prick coach instead of ridiculous concussion treatment.

That's the whole point of due process. You have decided he's a "prick," that's your choice. MANY players have testified to the opposite. Do an investigation, then decide who was right and wrong--or do you feel the words of a few M players should determine that Rich Rodriguez exceeded practice limits??

Not sure where it is but another thread referenced a team doctor sending James back to practice. If that's true then the point isn't about Leach punishing a player with a concussion. It only becomes that point once testimony for trainers/medical staff verify that James did have a concussion and couldn't be outside in the sun due to headaches.

Again, how Leach handled past injuries/concussions is extremely relevant to this conversation because we're all assuming James had one because he said he did.

I'm seeing a lot of references to "due process." Did Leach have some kind of clause in his contract requiring a full investigation before his employer could suspend him? If not, why all the angst? College coaches will often suspend a player who is arrested immediately following the incident (and before the player has gone through the legal system). That doesn't seem to upset anyone. Why would it be different for a coach?

It appears that the specific reason for the firing was the way Leach behaved following his suspension ("insubordination"). If true, then if he'd simply complied with his superiors, he'd have presumably been reinstated at some point (probably after the bowl). Again, that's not too different from how it works for a suspended player. If Cissoko screws up (and he may have already), he'll never be reinstated. No one seems to have a problem with that. Why is it a problem regarding Leach? I imagine that most of us would get fired if our bosses put us on probation and then we basically spat in their faces.

They'll spend a lot of that "saved" money on a new coach - and they'll have to make a splash with their next hire if they want to appease their fanbase, which is now in open revolt. There is a real risk that TT might see a significant drop in ticket/merchandise revenue next season as disgruntled fans may not turn out. I don't see a plausible economic rationale here.

another 1.6 million (400,000/year for the remaining 4 years on his contract) if he was fired for performance on the field.
Throw in a strained relationship between the coach and AD over some supposedly nasty contract negotiations and the picture should be getting a little clearer.
Other factors that have come out- James according to doctors was sunlight sensitive (ie put him in a dark place). TT requires players even injured ones to do something per ESPN Sportscenter. Sheds are right beside practice field per Sportscenter video. Another coach complained of James lack of effort and poor attitude at previous practice. Was it right what was done to him maybe not. IMO kid sounds like a cancer that needed to be isolated.
Facts will come out in court.

I think the story is easy to understand. James is viewed as a non-contributer with attitude problems by the coaching staff. This is obvious from the emails by former coaches and some players.

James shows up to practice with a diagnosis of a mild concussion. Leach, completely frustrated by James' prior efforts and latest injury, decides he doesn't want James at practice. He doesn't want the malcontent to be a distraction.

Leach then makes the kid go in the shed, and the press conference room/electrical closet during practice so he doesn't have to deal with him. There are reports of an assistant that makes sure that James doesn't leave or sit down.

TexTech finds out about the situation. Leach refuses to apologize to the James family or admit he might be wrong. Leach is suspended. Then Leach files lawsuit so he can coach in bowl game. Leach is then fired for not showing any sort of regret for locking a player in a shed and then media room/closet and then defiantly filing a lawsuit.

Personally I feel like the whole thing could have been avoided by sending James to his dorm or to the trainer's room. The coach doesn't want an injured player being a distraction to others just has to send him home. Then the next day you meet with the player and tell him why he was sent home and how he can fix the issues. If the player doesn't improve on his issues you boot him off the team.

Leach must not have thought he had to explain himself to a third string player,taking time away from practice with the team.
Leach would have been farther along if he had rubbed Adams shoulders,brought him some refreshments and read him a story.
This coach really didn't understand the power of ESPN or Adams father.

Craig James has an outlet for his opinions or thoughts free of charge.I would guess that Adam James is not the only player among thousands,that feel either real or imagined that they were or are being mistreated by a coach,Yet we do not hear of those misdeeds.
ESPN,if you caught it,went out for some positive feedback for Adam after a barrage of anti James emails and letters by his own team members flooded TT.

We've made some comparisons between "allegations versus Mike Leach" and "allegations versus Rich Rodriguez" over the past couple of days.

Here's where the comparisons end, and where the stark contrasts begin --

~Rich Rodriguez didn't get combative when Justin Boren quit, and accused Michigan of having lost its "family values." Rodriguez stayed quiet, and took it. (Shame on our local press for having completely failed to report the real story. Still, Rodriguez let it go.)

~Rich Rodriguez didn't go off on Mike Rosenberg for his reporting; Rodriguez did react to Rosenberg's having sandbgged the the two freshmen, Stokes and Hawthorn, but that was purely protection of his young players, not of himself. cf., Mike Leach.

~Rich Rodriguez stayed silent, again, when Mark Snyder butchered the reporting of the Football Bust speeches, in which Regent White had launched herself into a rambling 5-minute talk on "Katrina" before Rodriguez uttered his single sentence on the topic as he looked across the dais directly at Regent White, in acknowledgment of her comments.

Or complaining in a particular way about having a concussion, after having had numerous previous run-ins with coaches on other matters?

I give Leach and his lawyer a big FAIL for attempting to claim that anything they were doing with Adam James was "treatment." It wasn't; don't try to kid us on that one.

And I give Craig James a big FAIL for implying that Adam was put in danger as suffering some kind of post-concussion trauma.

I view this as simply having been a routine disciplinary fight between a very coddled player and his very-high-profile father on the one hand, and a very quirky and mercurial head coach on the other hand.

Hiring a lawyer and filing an injunction against your own school is career wise, the equivalent to suicide by cop.

Once again, I will equate this to your job. If you were put on administrative leave for 2 weeks because of allegations that at least had the ring of truth in them, would your first move be to hire lawyers and take your employer to court the very next day?

That's such a straw man argument. The issue isn't that the punishment was so horrendous. The question is, what was the reason for the punishment.

This is all about concussions. If the punishment is concussion-related, its unacceptable. If it's not concussion-related, no one would give a shit and Leach got a raw deal. No matter how minor the punishment, coaches shouldn't do anything that would motivate a player to try hide or play through a concussion.

No, I read the newspaper and see hundreds of stories talking about how former football players have are suffering from debilitating mental injuries and have had their quality of life destroyed because of concussions they suffered while playing. And how the NFL and college football are recognizing this as a serious issue, and are trying to come up with ways to deal with it that may involve severely transforming the game we love. It's kind of a hot topic right now. And it's entirely the reason Mike Leach was fired.

I wouldn't say "sealed the deal" because I always may change my mind as new info comes out, but yeah, the comments of these current players have strongly influenced my opinion.

I have no problem acknowledging that James might be an entitled prick, based on the comments of former players and coaches (though these comments were likely cherry-picked from Leach's compatriots). I just don't think that's the most relevant issue.

For me, it comes down to one question, with two sub-parts: (i) Was James punished (ii) for reasons relating to his concussion?

During his numerous media appearances, Leach's attorney implied (without saying it explicitly), that James wasn't being punished, he was just placed somewhere appropriate for his condition. The comments from the current players, who were actually there, seem to blow this out of the water -- at least those who have spoken out believe that James was definitely being punished.

The issue then becomes whether he was punished for something relating to his concussion, or something else. Leach's attorney hasn't even admitted that James was being punished, much less has he claimed that there was a non-concussion related reason for the punishment. All they've said is that James was a malcontent in the past, which wouldn't justify punishment on this particular day. So unless and until further evidence comes out, or the Leach camp offers a plausible explanation of what happened, it looks to me that he acted inappropriately.

So I assume that he has done this in the past then. Since it isn't about James as an individual and all about the punishment of players who complain about injuries, I would assume players in the past have had concussions and not practiced because of them. He must have locked them in the closet for not practicing, right?

Your argument is that Leach dislikes kids whining about injuries. My question is did he just decide this year that he didn't like kids milking injuries? Because one would think if this was only about the punishment of milking a mild concussion and not about the douchiness of the kid, then he would hate every one of his past players who milked injuries and humiliated them all accordingly.

I never said the douchiness of the kid didn't play into it. I'm sure if Graham Harrell was suffering from a concussion there would be a different result. Maybe he reacted as he did because he dislikes James and thought that James was milking the injury. That's an explanation, but not an excuse. You don't punish a kid for anything having to do with a concussion, no matter how annoying he's been in the past.

And my attempt at being funny succeeded greatly, thank you very much. Come on, you didn't even like the Glen Winston joke?

I am saying the concussion had nothing to do with it. It had everything to do with a player/coach disagreement.

The James kid went to practice with sunglasses on and was sent to a shed where there is no sun. He was so disgusted and embarrassed about his treatment that he went back the next day so the exact same thing could happen again. Miraculously, this time he had his cell phone on him so he could record the place where he was forced to go or no one would have known how humiliated he felt the first time. Whew! How lucky is it that he happened to have his camera phone with him the second time?!?!?!

So your theory is that it had nothing to do with the concussion, it had to do with James going to a practice with sunglasses on. Do you not see the logical disconnect?

James said that he was wearing the sunglasses because he was sensitive to light as a result of the concussion he just suffered. He was apparently punished for wearing sunglasses. Hence, the concussion had something to do with it.

No, my theory is that James didn't care about the concussion or punishment until after he was able to get the punishment on tape with his cell phone. Then, magically, him and his family were extremely offended. My theory is that James knew he was a dick the day before and was hoping to go back the second day, do the same thing he did before, and get punished the same way. Why go back if you knew you were going to file a complaint? Because one time locked in a shed is acceptable punishment but 2 times is over the line? As I said before, it isn't about the concussion and it is all about James v Leach.

So let's accept your theory that James went back the second day to get evidence of mistreatment that he could use against Leach. How does that excuse Leach's behavior on day 1? Basically, you're challenging the motives of the complainant, but not providing much of a defense for Leach's conduct.

Because then it looks as though James and his entire family don't really care about the punishment or the concussion, only about getting Leach fired. Your whole point the past 2 days is that he punished him because of his concussion - when it looks like the kid cared more about having a "gotcha" moment with coach Leach rather than shielding his eyes from the harmful sunlight that hurt his eyes so much that he went outside to practice 2 days in a row, it doesn't bode well for the kid.

I have no idea what your point is. Forget about what James cared about. Why do you think he was sent to the shed, if not for punishment for wearing sunglasses? You still haven't answered that question.

He was sent to the shed for breaking team rules. Team rule is that you can't wear sunglasses on the sideline. I guess if you want to split hairs, the sunglasses were related to a concussion, but I am going to guess there are other ways to keep the sun out of your eyes that are not against team rules. How about a hat? If they aren't against the rules, why didn't he wear a hat? Or how about standing there with your hand over your eyebrow. These are quite effective when I am trying to keep sun out of my eyes. Unless just walking outside without sunglasses hurts his eyes, at which point I am pretty positive it was more than just a mild concussion. If he was in too much pain from the sun, he shouldn't have been attending an outdoor practice. I am pretty sure Leach has had players in the past with much more serious than a mild concussion and I never heard of them refusing to take off sunglasses or anything else that might be against team rules. Why is that?

This is no problem to me, even if James was forced to stay in the area that he recorded on the cell phone he brought to practice. It's a small room that he had to stay in, cry me a raging river of sorrow. You can cut the estrogen with a knife around here.

I love how the anonymity of the internet turns everyone into a 6'4", 225-pound super-tough guy who grew up crawling through shards of glass five miles uphill to 4:00 a.m. football practice (the first of four per day).

Whether or not Adam James is the biggest crybaby in the world, whether his father is a jerk, whether or not Adam was sent to a closet, media room, or storage shed, the fact appears to be that Mike Leach had a concussed player and, rather than do the sensible thing and send him to the training room (or hospital), forced him to participate in some bizarre punishment. That is not the kind of behavior a coach should be engaging in. I sure wouldn't want my son to have to go through that.

In Leach's defense (see, I'm not biased!) he suffered the concussion the previous day, went to see the doctor, was diagnosed, and then was sent to return to the practice field (to observe, not to play). That's when he was sent to the shed. Your email seems to imply that he never received treatment, but rather suffered an injury on the field and then was sent to the shed when he complained of symptoms. That's not at all what happened.

I assume he was asked to speak in his capacity as the parent who complained, rather than in his capacity as a journalist. I don't see how that's biased at all (assuming, of course, that they also gave Leach or his lawyer an opportunity to speak, which I assume they did)

I don't understand your point. Of course being a father is a conflict of interest . . . that's why Craig James will not be covering the Texas Tech game, and is not being asked to comment on the story in his capacity as an ESPN reporter.

But it's not a conflict if he's asked to comment in his capacity as the parent who raised the complaint, just as any other parent whose complaint led to a coach's firing would presumably be asked to comment.

I'm surprised there isn't more talk of Leach's "fat little girlfriends" comment RE the cause for his firing. Universities, I assume even in Texas, are primarily academic institutions. When the most prominent public figure at a university makes a public statement that directly denigrates multiple members of the student body and is rightly seen as enormously disrespectful by many others, I find it easy to see why that figure's job would be on thin ice. And rightly so.

There's a difference between being politically correct and not being a fucking asshole when representing your employer in public (especially when your being a fucking asshole is directed at your employer's clients).

so he could get away from TT and start over somewhere else. Maybe the situation just offered itself up and he said 'ok, I'll stay quiet and get fired with my bonus and buyout" Nice thinking coach, what job is next.....hhhhhhmmmmmmmmm. OH OH, Michigan state.